Talk:higrülotalp

RFV discussion: December 2017–November 2018
Volapük for male mole cricket. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, no one has ever used Volapük to write about mole crickets, but it was deemed necessary to have things like that spell out in detail exactly how many angels can dance on that specific pin. With a modular, completely regular constructed language like this, it almost seems like we should treat the derived forms as SOP, since anyone who knows one form can construct all the others by purely mechanical application of a known set of morphemes to a transparently-derived root. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Roots aren't completely transparently derivable in Esperanto, and I doubt so in Volapük. kolego is one example of a root word and another affixed root colliding. Jokes about financo(finance) being fi-(shameful) and *nanco abound, as well. I think Lojban and company are about the only languages that desired and achieved purity in that sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it isn't completely transparent in Volapük either; compare and . And I think that the fact that a word with a gender prefix is attestable is noteworthy and useful lexical information for Volapük. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)